1. The only reason we are even having this discussion is because it appears to have worked. Remember it had never been tested on humans and had only been administered to eight monkeys when they agreed to the treatment. It could have made them worse. It was a risk.

I think this is a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation.

2. If we had given the medication to African people there would have been cries about how unethical it is for Americans to test an experimental serum on vulnerable African children and adults. If it hadn't worked or made them worse people would be asking "Why did you test it on Africans? Why did you not test it on your own Americans that are sick instead?" etc. The fragile trust in that area would be completely gone at that point.

3. Plus, aren't non vaxxers on this forum outraged with testing vaccines/drugs on people in third world/poor countries? It gets brought up enough that I'm shaking my head at why all of a sudden NOW it's a good idea? Which brings me back to my original point that this was a damned if we do damned if we don't kind of situation.

.

1. I agree it was a risk.

A list of candiates who were mostly likely to be positively affected by the serum (based on the little we know about it) and were capable of giving informed consent could have been drawn up, and a decision made from there. That is not what happenned. This serum was earmarked for the 2 Americans - not for "good candidates."

2. I am not sure "fragile trust" should enter into it. It should be who is capable of understanding the risks and most likely to benefit. I get what you are saying…but it must come down to benefit and informed consent, or you are playing god…and answering to Alive Americans and Dead Liberians isn't going to do much for "trust" either.

3. In general, yes. Aren't you outraged by the idea of testing drugs in general on those in third world countries?

Specific to Ebola: I don't think you can do human tests on an ebola vaccine or an ebola drug (and a drug makes more sense to me, given the sporadicness of the disease) on anyone but a person in a third world country. That is where Ebola typically resides.

The only reason we are even having this discussion is because it appears to have worked. I disagree!

Bringing a non American with ebola into the US is not something that would have probably ever happened.

Never say never!

The US has a long history of bringing in victims of all types of disasters and with disease form all over the place. The US also has a long history of providing aid (medical) and supplying the US Navy Hosp. Ships too.

Until I see some evidence from the people claiming that he had reached the hemorrhagic phase of ebola, this debating over whether or not the serum could have possibly saved him at that point is moot. All accounts have said he was not at that stage yet.

That is what the "experts" are saying too, they don't know it had any effect! As I posted up thread.

"There are a reasonable number of people who live even without treatment. … The longer you can keep someone alive, the more likely your immune system kicks in and fights this off."

Some magic is fiction, other is REAL magick!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations and you're not in this world to live up to mine.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This was administered through the "compassionate use" clause through the FDA. It's not an easy process and it's not just a matter of whoever wants it gets it. It was an American company that made it, and it makes sense to test it on American citizens for many of the reasons I listed above.

Serenbat, this was not a clinical trial. This serum was nowhere NEAR the human testing phase of clinical trials. Eight monkeys, that's it. Two of which died, IIRC.

Someone made the comment:

"Studying how a virus works is important. Viruses are constantly mutating. Think of the cold virus. There are well over 200 strains of it. What if this highly experimental drug is what this strain of the ebola needs to mutate into something different? What if it causes the virus to go airbourne? If they were going to test this on ebola patients... I guess I have to be glad that it is here in the United States, where there is at least a hope of containing any possible ill effects from it."

FDA approval for a non American citizen would probably not have happened, in large part because of the close monitoring requirement of the compassionate use clause.

Again, the only reason we are even having this discussion is because it appears to have worked. If we had given it to African doctors instead of the American ones and it paralyzed them, made them worse, etc the sh*t would have hit the fan in those countries, so to speak.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'm also proudly #teamvax To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This was administered through the "compassionate use" clause through the FDA. It's not an easy process and it's not just a matter of whoever wants it gets it. It was an American company that made it, and it makes sense to test it on American citizens for many of the reasons I listed above.

"If the request is approved, the attending physician should devise an appropriate schedule for monitoring the patient, taking into consideration the investigational nature of the device and the specific needs of the patient. The patient should be monitored to detect any possible problems arising from the use of the device. Following the compassionate use of the device, a follow-up report should be submitted to FDA as an IDE Report in which summary information regarding patient outcome is presented. If any problems occurred as a result of device use, these should be discussed in the IDE Report and reported to the reviewing IRB as soon as possible."

There is nothing that says the monitoring has to take place on US soil. There is nothing that indicates that monitoring is even that onerous. I am sure there are some hospitals in Africa capable of this and well trained (perhaps even US trained ) physicians.

"If the request is approved, the attending physician should devise an appropriate schedule for monitoring the patient, taking into consideration the investigational nature of the device and the specific needs of the patient. The patient should be monitored to detect any possible problems arising from the use of the device. Following the compassionate use of the device, a follow-up report should be submitted to FDA as an IDE Report in which summary information regarding patient outcome is presented. If any problems occurred as a result of device use, these should be discussed in the IDE Report and reported to the reviewing IRB as soon as possible."

There is nothing that says the monitoring has to take place on US soil. There is nothing that indicates that monitoring is even that onerous. I am sure there are some hospitals in Africa capable of this and well trained (perhaps even US trained ) physicians.

The compassionate clause thing is still problematic. I imagine it is usually used on a patient or a group of patients in the USA - and I imagine doctors do not typically play god about who gets it. Example: person A and B are the same age and in the same general health. They have both been stricken with the same disease (lets even say Ebola) and have a similar prognosis. I cannot imagine a doctor giving it to one patient, but not the other. Who wants to play god like that?

I didn't say it had to be on US soil, but ebola is very different from most of the compassionate use clause approvals. They are mostly for cancers or for OKing drugs for children that haven't been tested and shown to be safe for use. There was a case that made the headlines in the US not long ago http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/health/cohen-josh/ for example.

The monitoring requirements are obviously going to be a lot more onerous for something like ebola than for a cancer treatment. You can't spread cancer. I should think that would be obvious given the serious and deadly nature of the virus.

There is no comparison between the isolation wards and care at Emory in Atlanta and hospitals in Liberia. It is the best in the country and probably the world.

"The hospital has a special isolation unit set up in collaboration with the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to treat patients with serious infectious diseases."

The isolation unit was made in collaboration with the CDC and is the reason they were transported to that specific hospital. It is right next to the CDC headquarters, and they are being monitored by infectious disease specialists there.

If you had the option of being treated/monitored in Liberia or at Emory in Atlanta for ebola which would you choose?

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'm also proudly #teamvax To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

@Kathy
, you keep saying that all things are or were equal between the American and the Liberian doctor, but they weren't.

We have no idea what the serum could do to the virus or to the person. The American doctor was able to be transported to a world class isolation unit and be monitored and treated by the top infectious disease experts in the world for reactions.

The Liberian doctor is not.

If you had to approve an extremely experimental drug with unknown side effects to a person who was currently contagious with a deadly infectious disease wouldn't you want to approve it for the person who could be the most closely monitored and best isolated?

What? HPV is a virus, not a cancer. It can cause cancer later on but the cancer is not "contagious". You are not going to catch cancer by sitting next to or treating someone with cancer.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'm also proudly #teamvax To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is ethical question, that does not mean it has to be personal - why are you making it so?

An ethical discussion doesn't need to be made personal to be productive.

It is not personal, she does not have ebola. It is a hypothetical.

Hypotheticals can be useful in discussions when trying to make a certain point.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'm also proudly #teamvax To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What? HPV is a virus, not a cancer. It can cause cancer later on but the cancer is not "contagious". You are not going to catch cancer by sitting next to or treating someone with cancer.

The marketing has made it that many people "think" it IS a cancer vaccine and giving it to boys prevents spreading the cancer to girls- that is how marketing works, deceive and deflect many buy into the claim about that vaccine, most know that.

If you had the option of being treated/monitored in Liberia or at Emory in Atlanta for ebola which would you choose?

[QUOTE=teacozy;17892978] @Kathy , you keep saying that all things are or were equal between the American and the Liberian doctor, but they weren't.
QUOTE]

I don't think it matters what I want. I am not avoiding the question - I don't think what I would want for myself matters. We are all essentially selfish and all want the best chance of our own survival. That is why there should be a protocol in place to decide how to use experimental and scarce resources - so that personal self interest (and nepotism) are not the defining factors in who receives care. A life is a life.

Furthermore (and I need to verify this) but wasn't the best success with the serum in animal studies in those who received the serum early? I am not sure the Americans were the best fit in terms medical profile. Ability to monitor is not the only factor in deciding who gets a scarce resource - indeed, according to some of the links Serenbat posted, likelihood of actually saving the life comes first.

As per the second quote - I don't think doctors in this instance are worth saving above other people. I simply mentioned a Liberian doctor as an example of someone capable of giving informed consent. In an incredibly significant outbreak, it might make sense to save a doctor first so they can in turn save other lives, but this it not the case here. Indeed, if anything, a Liberian doctor lives in Liberia and may be capable of helping with the outbreak if he recovers) or future Ebola outbreaks)...the American doctors are being shipped stateside, so any argument on "save doctors first" is moot.

The PRO vaccine side has on here and elsewhere said vaccines are not made for profit but because of the need! Apparently profit is a factor.

I didn't "claim" vaccines are natural but there have been several threads on here where those who are PRO vaccine have made that claim that ingredients are and comparable to nature in exposure! I certainly do not think they are! Natural is also something the PROvaccines side does not seem in any way support of, thus why we have vaccines, because we no longer allow nature to act, thus the reason we have vaccines for what was normal and natural. In this case (with the links I provided) there is such irony because of the treatment is natural...only until a vaccines? Irony!

It's been stated (I did provide a link too) on here numerous times that vaccines do not make money and thus are not made to make money. The ANTI vaccines has always disputed this and said it is about money and that vaccines DO make money. In this thread (on Ebola) and with the links I provided, it shows that for a vaccines it IS about money. No profit, no desire, that flies in the face of all the other PROvaccines message out there on it. Irony!

.......a plane ride away.......just what the PROside says and now got with the help/blessing of the CDC Irony!

You are mixing arguments. No one here has ever claimed that vaccines are natural. Pointing out that the amount of formaldehyde in a vaccine is only a small fraction of the amount of formaldehyde naturally present in our bodies, even among infants, is not the same as claiming that vaccines are natural, nor is pointing out that we get formaldehyde in even larger doses from food a claim that it is natural.

Also - where has anyone said that pharma provides vaccines out of the goodness of their hearts? Where has anyone even said that big businesses have hearts?

Certain individuals, sure, such as Jonas Salk who worked to cure polio because he wanted to save people from it and refused to patent his vaccine, sure, or even Bill Gates who uses his own money to try to wipe out disease. But big business?

The point that has been made is that while they are not being overly generous, they do not make a significant profit from old vaccines such as measles and tetanus and such. There is more money in new vaccines and they are looking at vaccines as cancer treatment and such, but still that potential proffit is a drop in the bucket compared to their big money makers such as cholesterol or blood pressure treatment or viagra - things that people take regularly for years.

Ebola vaccine development costs millions and millions and how are they going to make the money back? Most vaccine research for ebola has been funded by the department of defense based on a concern that ebola could someday be an actual risk to us if used in a bio terrorism attack where they figured out a method to infect a lot of people quickly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat

Isn't this anti-PRO vaccine??
I mean time after time we hear how polio is "just a plane ride away", that too is very hard to spread in a first world nation with a non-third world sewer system yet that doesn't stop the PRO vaccines mantra from being repeated. From what I am reading on comments (on news stories) seems the PRO vaccine side sees no different between Ebola or polio when it comes to brining out the fear and saying it's the same threat. We are told we have such a great health system here in the US, that too seems odd that the fear factor for disease is so great coming from far away lands is so prevalent.

Maybe it's all to instill fear not reality

Yep, ebola did indeed come to the US by plane. In this case though, since everyone knows they have ebola, it can be done safely. There are a lot of safeguards in place, the only people at risk are those who have direct contact with them, and the risk even to those people is very small. This is not going to set off an ebola epedemic in the US.

Polio, on the other hand, is a risk to us. While there have been improvements to sewer systems since the 50's, even back then they were not really worried about cholera or typhoid any more because modern sanitation problems had already taken care of those. Ironically, modern sanitation may have worsened the polio problem - one theory is that back in the day before sewage treatment, people were exposed to polio fairly regularly, so mothers had strong immunity to it which they passed on to their babies, who typically were exposed to polio while very young and still benefiting from this protection. Then sanitary practices slowed the spread of the disease, so infants and children often weren't exposed to it until they were older and no longer had the help of maternal antibodies, and thus had far worse outcomes and a lot more cases of paralysis or death than before. Polio does not depend on sewage to spread, all it takes is kids or other people who are infected and don't do a great job washing their hands after using the bathroom. (the other diseases can spread this way too, but apparently not so easily, since modern sewer systems did take care of them).

In addition, the problem with polio is that people can spread it for many weeks with many of them never even knowing that they are infected since a lot of cases ore asymptotic. People with ebola are not contagious before showing symptoms, and get very sick and many of them die very quickly. It is possible to spread it for a while after recovery for survivors, but it doesn't spread very easily and would need contact with bodily fluid, and they would know they had had it and be warned to take precautions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat

I provided two links that talk directly about blood transfusions, it does make it quite clear IMO

I do think natural is always better

ETA- I will repeat, if one actually reads the link(s) I provided the word natural is used to describe the treatment being given. I DID NOT nor DO I FEEL vaccines are natural in any way, shape or whatever but referring to vaccines as natural (not what this thread is about!) have been what the PROvaccine has said, on here and elsewhere. Natural in ingredients and natural in that those ingredients are just like nature - I disagrees with that line of thought regarding vaccines.

One of my grandmothers nearly died of an ear infection as a child, and my other grandmother lost a relative to diabetes. Back then, all that could be done for either was let the body act naturally. True, most kids with ear infections recovered, though some did not, but the natural course didn't work so well with diabetes. I prefer today when bacterial ear infections can be treated quickly with antibiotics, insulin means that people with type 1 diabetes can live long and healthy lives, and by the way, how often do people die of rheumatic fever these days? If you like the old way better though, well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.

With ebola, since letting the body fight it naturally results in the deaths of up to 90% of people infected, I do hope that someday there can be have the option of an unnatural intervention of either a vaccine to prevent it or a medicine that greatly improves survival rate.

You are mixing arguments. No one here has ever claimed that vaccines are natural. Pointing out that the amount of formaldehyde in a vaccine is only a small fraction of the amount of formaldehyde naturally present in our bodies, even among infants, is not the same as claiming that vaccines are natural, nor is pointing out that we get formaldehyde in even larger doses from food a claim that it is natural. Pointing out time and time about it being just like in a pear (a drop in the ocean, etc) has been done on here and saying it's natural like in a pear has occurred and equating it to being no biggie either. I think others can take it how they want.

Also - where has anyone said that pharma provides vaccines out of the goodness of their hearts? Where has anyone even said that big businesses have hearts? It's called a figure of speech and profit and vaccines and the PRO view is very well known on here, there has been several threads that address this - a recent post today in fact that I found to be dead on regarding it in this thread- post # 8 money,money MONEY! vaccines $$$$$

Certain individuals, sure, such as Jonas Salk who worked to cure polio because he wanted to save people from it and refused to patent his vaccine, sure, or even Bill Gates who uses his own money to try to wipe out disease. But big business? I feel this has been addressed here. IMO bottom line is bottom dollar!

The point that has been made is that while they are not being overly generous, they do not make a significant profit from old vaccines such as measles and tetanus and such. There is more money in new vaccines and they are looking at vaccines as cancer treatment and such, but still that potential proffit is a drop in the bucket compared to their big money makers such as cholesterol or blood pressure treatment or viagra - things that people take regularly for years. It's call profit, again there is a current thread that address this too - money,money MONEY! vaccines $$$$$

Ebola vaccine development costs millions and millions and how are they going to make the money back?and so what? Most vaccine research for ebola has been funded by the department of defense based on a concern that ebola could someday be an actual risk to us if used in a bio terrorism attack where they figured out a method to infect a lot of people quickly.

Yep, ebola did indeed come to the US by plane. In this case though, since everyone knows they have ebola, it can be done safely. There are a lot of safeguards in place, the only people at risk are those who have direct contact with them, and the risk even to those people is very small. This is not going to set off an ebola epedemic in the US. Time will tell. Teacozy said about the same - She also told us people aren't getting on planes from remote villages and coming here (NY) but we know that isn't true either, the government has managed to test several already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy Ebola outbreaks occur primarily in remote villages in Central and West Africa. People that live in remote villages are not likely to get on airplanes and travel to New York for work or vacation.

Polio, on the other hand, is a risk to us. That opinion is not shared by all.

One of my grandmothers nearly died of an ear infection as a child, and my other grandmother lost a relative to diabetes. Back then, all that could be done for either was let the body act naturally. True, most kids with ear infections recovered, though some did not, but the natural course didn't work so well with diabetes. I prefer today when bacterial ear infections can be treated quickly with antibiotics, insulin means that people with type 1 diabetes can live long and healthy lives, and by the way, how often do people die of rheumatic fever these days? again there was no vaccine for that either and still we do survive! If you like the old way better though, well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yes, thank you for letting me have an opinion. I certainly can still have one, BUT many want to take way my right to it!

With ebola, since letting the body fight it naturally results in the deaths of up to 90% of people infected, I do hope that someday there can be have the option of an unnatural intervention of either a vaccine to prevent it or a medicine that greatly improves survival rate.

That is not totally accurate about that 90% figure. Also wanting a vaccine also doesn't seem to be a popular or shown to be needed by many - poster on here don't see the need.

Latest figures from the World Health Organization (WHO) record 1,603 cases of Ebola in the West African outbreak and 887 deaths - giving a death rate of just over 55 percent.

That is well below the 78.5 percent average death rate over 14 past outbreaks of the same virus - called the "Zaire strain" after the former name of the Democratic Republic of Congo where it was first detected in 1976. In some outbreaks the rate was up to 90 percent, according to WHO data.

I do find it a bit unusual, (I also completely get it too! ) this "assumption" that ebola is not easy to spread being put of by those who happen to also be PRO vaccine. Funny thing is, the US govt really seems to be taking a different approach. It was posted in #22 by applejuice the govt is taking a bit different take by that order.

Currently there are six that have been tested thus far in the US, they are not (by all accounts) show signs of "bleeding", simply illness - Well fever and common flu-like symptoms alone and where you have been, seems to be about enough to get you tested. http://nypost.com/2014/08/05/6-peopl...-ebola-in-nyc/

“I don’t think it’s in the cards that we would have widespread Ebola in this country,” he said. He acknowledged that other travelers might bring back the disease, leading to “a case or two.” But in Africa, hospital and burial practices are feeding the spread of Ebola, and such practices are different in the United States, he said.

The key, therefore, is not to keep the virus out of the U.S. but to address the epidemic abroad, he said. “We know how to protect ourselves, but the single most important thing we can do is stop it at the source in Africa. That’s going to protect them and protect us.”

given Pers post length it was hard to reply without making my reply bold/colored

Hypotheticals can be useful in discussions when trying to make a certain point.

Here is one, would you like to make this point? If it was your child and they did die from Ebola, would you just be OK not touching or kissing them goodbye? It's relevant as that is how this disease spreads. - Please don't answer, frankly it is not relevant nor is where you want to be treated, US or Liberia. I see you also didn't state where you wanted to be treated.

Frankly I would really hope this personal hypothetical stops. There are far more REAL issue here. Hypotheticals that are not personal IMO are the ones that are relevant.

But most vaccines take a few weeks to provide immunity, and even then, they don't always control the disease's spread.

There's a lot to be outraged by in the Ebola outbreak: The fact that there's no treatment for Ebola, and 60 percent of infected people will suffer bloody, painful deaths. Or the fact that Africans seem to get slammed by one health disaster after another. Or the fact that poverty and feeble governments make those disasters worse. Or the fact that it took an American doctor falling ill for Americans to start paying attention. Or the fact that the far more deadly epidemics of tuberculosis and malaria rarely command media attention in the way Ebola does.

The lack of an Ebola vaccine, meanwhile, doesn't make the short list of Africa's health problems.

.......and talking of funding - If we look at history and who did fund certain vaccines vs how it is done today, you also see some researches didn't care about profit and also wouldn't take a paten either for their work, not taking patens is virtually unheard of today.

Well this is relevant. This article from the UK called "Ebola virus: British experts urge US and WHO to ‘give Africans experimental cure’" was posted on reddit. The comments are interesting and echo a lot of what I've already said.

"It is so experminatal that they don't even know how much to give and when.
Second, damn if you do and damn if you don't. If we did give it to them and someone died they would blame America for experimenting in Africa with un tested drugs. So in this situation we can't win."

"I came here to say this. If they give them the drug and everyone got sick, or developed cancer or something, everyone would be in a hue and cry about "racist Americans" experimenting on Africans. There is almost no way for the Americans to come out ahead here. It's not like this hasn't been done before. Ever heard of the Tuskegee experiments?" "Yep - and that's exactly why the US shouldn't use experimental drugs in Africa. It would be used to bash America for another 100 years."

Someone asked "if a person has ebola, what does he have to lose?" To which someone responded:

"The individual person might have nothing to lose, but in the bigger picture the populace of West Africa might have a great deal to lose. If we distribute a drug that could potentially worsen the condition of someone with Ebola to the populace there, possibly even killing them (we simply don't know since rigorous testing hasn't been done), an already distrustful populace will become even more angry and suspicious of health workers. People have already: attacked health workers, stolen Ebola patients from hospitals, rioted outside of hospitals, and posted armed guards at the entry-points to villages to keep health workers out. We don't need to compound this problem by injecting people with an experimental drug that might kill them and validate these fears."

"And it is not like the people themselves can give informed consent. Many of them have no concept of germ theory. They have no idea what a virus is. It is too wide a knowledge gap to be able to provide them with enough information to even make an informed decision."

"Either you're an evil racist for not giving Africans the drug first, or you're an evil racist for giving Africans the drug first. It's a no-win scenario.PR Wise, War Games was right: the only way to win is not to play."

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'm also proudly #teamvax To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"If a new untested drug was used in Africa the left would be wetting themselves over "experimentation on Africans".

"Because providing an "untested on human" cure to African nations would have, without question, exposed these companies to the usual leftie racist critique.

They can't win..."

"Very true. You can see those Indie headlines now "Africans used as test tube rats" etc...."

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'm also proudly #teamvax To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well this is relevant. This article from the UK called "Ebola virus: British experts urge US and WHO to ‘give Africans experimental cure’" was posted on reddit. The comments are interesting and echo a lot of what I've already said.

"Though the pair remain weak – and there is no way of knowing at this stage how much of a help the new drug has actually been – the fact that it was given to the two Americans has resulted in widespread criticism and recriminations in West Africa."

"Liberia’s assistant health minister, Tolbert Nyenswah, said that the news of Dr Brantly and Ms Writebol’s treatment had “made our job very difficult” as dying patients and their relatives in Africa request the same “cure”.
Dr Nyenswah told the Wall Street Journal: “The population here is asking: 'You said there was no cure for Ebola, but the Americans are curing it?'”

“Experimental treatments shouldn't be rolled out generally without prior safety testing,” they said in their statement, issued in London late on Tuesday.
“But in the face of the critical challenge in West Africa, the WHO and Western medical agencies should be helping countries weigh the risks and benefits of limited deployment of the best (drug and vaccine) candidates to those in the greatest need, while continuously monitoring safety and efficacy.”

"The World Health Organization (WHO), “the only body with the necessary international authority” to allow such experimental treatments, “must take on this greater leadership role”, they said."

Sounds like from this that whether to give the two doses to the two Americans or to Africans was out of the FDA's hands, anyway. I don't think the FDA has the authority or power to approve a drug through compassionate use for Africans.

The WHO deciding to roll out these drugs is very different than the US based FDA deciding to test these drugs on Africans. If the poo hits the fan, it's not on us at that point.

In any case, whether it's ethical for the US to offer drugs to a developing country before they've been tested on our own citizens is one of the things the WHO is expected to address, according to this news article. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...4871477?page=2 It's not a simple cut and dry answer.

"How many times have we found magic therapies that ended up ... doing more harm than good?" cautioned University of Minnesota professor Michael Osterholm, who advises the U.S. government on infectious disease threats.

"Vaccine and drug treatment right now is not going to be the main way you bring this to a stop," he added.

Scientists stress that there's no way to tell if the experimental drug ZMapp really made a difference for two American aid workers infected while working in Liberia.

"We don't even know if it works," stressed Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, which helped fund research that led to the drug's development."

There has also been fear expressed in other articles and in the one I linked that rolling out these drugs could make the outbreaks worse because people might stop taking the precautionary measures known to control Ebola outbreaks, even though we have no idea if the drug even works.

"The WHO said that particularly in Liberia, health officials face community resistance from residents who fear going to the hospital and secretly care for ill loved ones at home, thus exposing themselves.

"The bottom line with Ebola is we know how to stop it: traditional public health," said CDC's Frieden said Wednesday: Finding and isolating patients, finding and educating who's been in contact with them and strict hospital infection control.

"Do those things with meticulous care and Ebola goes away," he said.

Minnesota's Osterholm fears those tried-and-true methods could be overshadowed by misunderstanding about any availability of the experimental drug."

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'm also proudly #teamvax To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Maybe they never even had ebola. Here are some interesting quotes from Rappoport:
---
*"The US diagnostic test for Ebola is utterly unreliable.

Using the test to claim a patient has Ebola or doesn’t have Ebola is scientific fraud.

Therefore, any pronouncements made by the Centers for Disease Control, where all the US testing is done, are worthless."

*"a recent study of 15 pharmacies and 5 hospital drug dispensaries in Sierra Leone discovered the widespread and unconscionable use of beta-lactam antibiotics.

These drugs are highly toxic. One of their effects? Excessive bleeding."
---
Whoah, what nerve he has, saying such things! Maybe you'll understand WHY if you take a quick look at his blog. If not, then maybe you fall into this category:
"You show people a germ (ebola) and you tell them what it is and what it does, and people salute. They give in. They believe. They actually know nothing. But they believe .No need to wonder. Don’t ask questions. Believe the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control. They always tell the truth."